View Single Post
  #6   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:30:02 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:53:20 GMT, Jeff Lowe
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Non uniformed combatants are not covered under the Rules of War as
enemy soldiers, and are not covered by the Geneva Conventions (Hague
Accords). In fact, they are said to be terrorists and may be summarily
executed after a drum head tribunal with no regards to any other
international law, or any protections under the Rules of War.
Particularly mentioned are non uniformed combatants with no TOC or
national identifier.


Non-uniformed perhaps by a very narrow western European standard,
however the tribal peoples of South Asia have modalities of dress that
clearly establishes a person's identity within their culture. Both
toponym and ethnonym are publicly declared by clothing as plainly and
openly as any uniform with name and rank insignias.


Perhaps...but those modalities were not covered under the Hague
Accords.


Sez you. Who declared that YOU get to define "uniform" and
make those defending themselves form sudden US attack go
buy ones that you approve of, probably from approved
sources. One shiney medal out of place & ......

Btw..those culturaly unique traits do not allow anyone to
distinguish if the subject is a civilian or a combatant, which is a
major and not negotiable requirement in the Hague Accords (Geneva
Convention)


Which explains why all those civilians were tortured, right?

If you are going to be a combatant, you must be clearly marked so your
intent and is unmistakable.


(Big sign taped to back: GUNNER.)

If you do not so clearly indicate, and
you act as a combatant, you are either a spy, or a terrorist and as
such, are not protected.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where."
Scipio


Then the neocon crazies had best get their terrorists out
of places like Iran fast, right?
--
Cliff